Kiddushin 15b — the Talmud in English

For it was taught:

It is stated concerning a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile: “After he has been sold, redemption shall be his. One of his brothers shall redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle’s son.”

” “

And if he is not redeemed through these [through the redemption of the relatives], he shall go out in the Jubilee year.” And we learned in a beraita: “

And if he is not redeemed through these”—

Rabbi says:

This verse teaches us that only

through these,

through the redemption of the relatives,

is he redeemed.

And he is not redeemed

[he does not go free]

through

the going out of

six

years.

And why would I think that he goes free after six years?

Because

I

would

be able

to say:

And is this not a logical inference

that we should learn this by a kal va-chomer from a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite?

And what of one who is not redeemed through “

these,”

that is, a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite, is not brought out to freedom through his relatives’ having redeemed him, unless he redeemed himself, and nevertheless he

is redeemed through six.

If so,

this,

a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile,

who is redeemed through “

these,”

through the redemption of the relatives, it emerges that the Torah increased his going out to freedom more than that of one sold to an Israelite. And is it

not a logical inference

that we should say that he too

is redeemed through six,

for it is a kal va-chomer from one sold to an Israelite?!

The verse therefore says,

for this reason it says:

“Through these,”

to teach that specifically

through these is he redeemed, and he is not redeemed through six.

Thus far are Rabbi’s words.

And from Rabbi’s words it is clear that one sold to an Israelite does not go out to freedom through the redemption of his relatives.

[For Rabbi said: “And what of one who is not redeemed through these”—that is, one sold to an Israelite].

And the Gemara proves from here that Rabbi does not derive “hired man”–“hired man” by means of a gzera shava:

And if it should enter your mind that he derives “hired man”–“hired man,”

if it should enter your mind that Rabbi derives “hired man”–“hired man” by means of a gzera shava, then this is difficult:

Why did he say,

why did Rabbi say:

“And what of one who is not redeemed through these?”

That is, one sold to an Israelite is not redeemed through the relatives.

Let us derive,

let us learn by means of a gzera shava

“hired man”–“hired man”

that even one sold to an Israelite is redeemed through relatives!

For just as one learns that one who sells himself to an Israelite is like one whom the court sold by means of the gzera shava “hired man”–“hired man,” so it is fitting to learn one sold to an Israelite from one sold to a gentile by means of the gzera shava.

For also concerning one sold to a gentile it is stated “hired man”: “As a hired man, year by year, shall he be with him.”

Rather, necessarily, Rabbi does not derive “hired man”–“hired man” by means of a gzera shava. Therefore, one sold to an Israelite is not redeemed through relatives, because the redemption of relatives was not stated concerning him himself. And this cannot be learned by means of a gzera shava. And we reject this:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In truth,

even Rabbi

derives

—he expounds—

“hired man”–“hired man”

by means of a gzera shava.

And here it is different,

and the law of the redemption of relatives is different,

for the verse says

concerning one sold to a gentile: “Or his uncle shall redeem him.”

The verse excluded: “

Shall redeem him,”

the relative—only

for

this Hebrew slave,

this one,

who was sold to a gentile,

and not

for another Hebrew slave,

another,

who was sold to an Israelite!

To teach you that only one sold to a gentile is redeemed through relatives, and not one sold to an Israelite.

And since the Gemara is discussing the beraita that cites Rabbi’s words, the Gemara continues to discuss the matter.

We learned in a beraita: “And if he is not redeemed through these”—Rabbi says: “Through these” he [one sold to a gentile] is redeemed, and he is not redeemed through six.

It is implied from the words of the beraita that there are those who disagree with Rabbi and maintain that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile goes out through six.

And we inquire about this:

And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi?

And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva

are they, for they expound the word “through these” for another exposition. The verse did not come to teach that he does not go out through six. And as follows:

For it was taught:

It is stated: “And if he

is not redeemed through these.”

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says:

The word “through these” teaches that specifically

“through these,”

through the redemption of the relatives, the slave sold to a gentile goes out

to freedom.

But if he is redeemed

through other people,

that is, if others redeem him, the slave does not go out to freedom, but

to servitude;

he becomes subservient to the one who redeemed him.

Rabbi Akiva says:

On the contrary,

“through these,”

through the redemption of the relatives, the slave leaves his gentile master

for servitude,

to become subservient to his relatives.

Whereas

through

the redemption of

all other people

the slave goes out

to freedom.

And shortly the Gemara will explain their dispute.

In any event, neither Rabbi Yosei the Galilean nor Rabbi Akiva expounded the word “through these” to exclude that one sold to a gentile does not go out through six. From here, according to their view, one sold to a gentile goes out through six.

The Gemara explains the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva:

And we inquire about this:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean?

What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean?

And we answer:

The verse says: “And if he is not redeemed through these, and he shall go out in the Jubilee year.” And this is how the verse is to be expounded:

If he is not redeemed through these,

through the redemption of the relatives,

but

through

the redemption of

another,

who is not a relative, then—

he shall go out

from the authority of that other

in the Jubilee year.

It is implied that before the Jubilee he does not go out. From here you learn that if another person redeemed him, he becomes subservient to him.

And Rabbi Akiva

disagrees and

says:

This is how the verse is to be expounded:

If he is not redeemed

by the hand of another,

but through these,

through relatives, then—

he shall go out

from the authority of the relatives

in the Jubilee year.

It is implied that before the Jubilee he does not go out. From here, if the relatives redeemed him, he becomes subservient to them.

And the Gemara rejects this:

And we challenge this:

But

surely

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean

would challenge Rabbi Akiva’s words:

How is it possible to expound the verse, “And if he is not redeemed ‘but’ through these”?

Is it

[really]

written, “but through these”?!

On the contrary, the verse says, “And if he is not redeemed through these”!

It must be that this was not Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning.

Rather, they disagree concerning this verse,

the root of the dispute between Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva is in another verse:

It is stated concerning a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile: “Or his uncle or his uncle’s son shall redeem him. Or his means shall suffice and he shall be redeemed.”

And this is the explanation of the verse’s words: “

Or

his uncle or his uncle’s son shall redeem him”—

this is the redemption of relatives. “

Or

his means shall suffice”—

this is the redemption of himself.

“And he shall be redeemed” —

this is the redemption by others.

That is, the verse teaches that even others can redeem the slave, even against the will of the gentile master.

Now, there is no doubt that the redemption of the slave himself is for freedom, and everyone agrees that the redemption written adjacent to it is juxtaposed to it. But they disagree as to which redemption was juxtaposed to the redemption of himself:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean holds: “A verse is expounded with regard to what precedes it” \-

When the verse is expounded to teach about another verse, it is expounded to teach about the verse written before it.

Therefore,

apply the redemption of relatives to the redemption of himself—

juxtapose the law of the redemption of relatives to the law of the redemption of himself, for the redemption of relatives was written before the redemption of himself:

Just as

just as

the redemption of himself

is

for freedom—

so too the redemption of relatives

is

for freedom.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: “A verse is expounded with regard to what follows it”—

when the verse is expounded to teach about another verse, it is expounded to teach about the verse that follows it.

Therefore,

apply the redemption by others to the redemption of himself—

juxtapose the law of redemption by others to the law of the redemption of himself, for the redemption by others was stated in the verse after the redemption of himself:

Just as the redemption of himself

is

for freedom—

so too the redemption by others

is

for freedom.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

if the dispute between Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva depends on this, then

“through these”—

why do I need it?

Why did they need to expound the verse “and through these,” as explained above in the beraita, [according to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean—through these for freedom, but through all other people for servitude; and according to Rabbi Akiva—through these for servitude, but through all other people for freedom]?

And we answer:

If not,

if “through these” had not been stated,

I would have said

that the

verse is expounded both with regard to what precedes it and with regard to what follows it.

One would have to expound that the redemption of himself comes to teach both about the redemption of relatives mentioned in the verse before it and about the redemption by others mentioned after it.

And all,

and the law of all the redemptions is the same: they are

for freedom,

and not for servitude.

Therefore, the verse needed to say “through these”—to teach that one redemption is for freedom and one redemption is for servitude.

And Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to which of them is for freedom and which is for servitude.

And we challenge the words of the answerer: according to your words, generally a verse is expounded both with regard to what precedes it and with regard to what follows it, while here the verse said “and these.” For this reason, the verse is expounded only to teach about one of them.

And

if so, the question returns to its place.

If so, the earlier question returns to its place: surely from the verse “and these” it is implied as Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says [“And if he is not redeemed through these,” through relatives, but through another, then “he shall go out in the Jubilee year,” and not before then].

And how did Rabbi Akiva expound the verse “he shall go out in the Jubilee year” as referring to the relatives? Because of this question, the Gemara retracts what had been obvious to us until now:

Until now it had been obvious to us that according to everyone “through these” means through relatives.

Accordingly, it is indeed implied as Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: “If he is not redeemed through these,” through relatives, but through another, then “he shall go out in the Jubilee year,” and not before.

Therefore we challenged Rabbi Akiva’s words: how is it possible to say that the verse “he shall go out in the Jubilee year” refers to the relatives?

And in order to resolve Rabbi Akiva’s words, the Gemara retracts this understanding:

Rather,

it is possible to explain the word “through these” as referring both to the relatives and to others, for the redemption by others was also mentioned in the passage, as the Gemara said above.

And

they disagree on the basis of reasoning,

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva disagree on the basis of reasoning: with regard to which is it more reasonable to apply “through these”—

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean holds: it is reasonable

that

the redemption by others is for servitude,

as will be explained shortly.

Therefore one must say that “through these” means through relatives, and this is what the verse said: if he is not redeemed through relatives, but through another, then he shall go out in the Jubilee, and not before.

And why was it reasonable to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean that the redemption by others is for servitude?

Because

if you say it is for freedom, they would refrain and would not redeem him.

For if you say that the redemption by others is for freedom, then they will refrain from redeeming the slave with their money, since they will gain nothing from it.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the Torah said that when others redeem the slave, he becomes subservient to them, so that they will redeem him from the gentile.

But with relatives, even if the slave does not become subservient to them, they will redeem him because he is their relative.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: it is reasonable

that

the redemption of relatives is for servitude,

as will be explained shortly.

Therefore one must say that “through these” means through others, and this is what the verse said: and if he is not redeemed through others, but through relatives, then he shall go out in the Jubilee year, and not before.

And why was it reasonable to Rabbi Akiva that the redemption of relatives is for servitude?

Because

if you say

that the redemption of the relatives is for freedom, then

each and every day he goes and enslaves

himself,

the slave will rely on the fact that his relatives will redeem him, and on the basis of this he will sell himself to gentiles.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

beraita

in question

which distinguishes between the law of redemption by relatives and redemption by others is

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva.

But the Sages say: everything,

whether redemption by relatives or redemption by others, is

for release.

And so the verse said: “And if he is not redeemed by these,” meaning, whether by relatives or by others, then “he shall go out in the Jubilee year,” and not earlier.

But if he is redeemed, whether by relatives or by others, he is released immediately.

And we explain:

Who are the Sages,

who are those Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva?

It is Rabbi. For he derives this “by these” for another derivation.

Rabbi expounded [in the preceding beraita] the word “by these” for another derivation [that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile does not go out in six years], and according to him, “by these” was not stated in order to distinguish between redemption by relatives and redemption by others.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi, this “

and he shall go out in the Jubilee year” \-

what does he do with it?

Why did the verse need to say here that the slave goes out from under his master in the Jubilee year? For it was already stated earlier in the same passage [Leviticus 25:50]: “And he shall reckon with his purchaser from the year when he was sold to him until the Jubilee year.” And from this verse it can be learned that the slave goes out in the Jubilee year! If so, why did the verse repeat this a second time?

And from this verse it can be learned that the slave goes free in the jubilee year! If so, why did the verse repeat this a second time?

And we answer:

it is needed for him—

for that which was taught.